Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Please address these concerns and take them under consideration in <br />developing the amended reclamation timetable. <br />5. Section 3.2 of the application describes the soil material stored in a small <br />stockpile on the mine bench and a small stockpile adjacent to the lower road, east <br />of the waste disposal area. This soil material (derived from ditch cleanout over <br />the years) will be used as topdressing on the reclaimed slopes in the portal bench <br />area. An approximate 2 foot thick layer of soil material from the mine bench <br />stockpile was placed over the waste coal placed on the mine bench in 2001, to <br />allow far interim site stabilization. The material is good quality growth <br />medium, and we would request that, to the extent practicable, the <br />topdressing layer of the interim reclamation be scalped off and set aside with <br />the stockpiled material for use as final reclamation topdressing. The <br />narrative section should be amended to address this step. <br />6. The road from Highway 139 up to and For some distance beyond the coal waste <br />disposal area (haul road and lower segment of the portal access road) is approved <br />to be retained, with modification, for the postmining land use. However, there is <br />one stipulation attached to the current permit (Stipulation No. 32), which is <br />relevant. The stipulation requires submittal of a written request for road retention <br />from the surface owner of the privately owned segment (between Highway l 39 <br />and the BLM boundary) prior to initiation offtnal reclamation of the Munger <br />Mine Bench and Upper Access Road. <br />Please include the documentation required by permit Stipulation No. 32 <br />within the technical revision application. <br />Restoration of ephemeral drainage channels associated with reclamation of the <br />upper portal bench access road is addressed in Section 3.3.2 and 3.3.4 narrative, <br />and designs are listed and depicted on map Figures 3.1-5, 3.1-6, 3.1-7, 3.1-11, and <br />Table 3.9-3. There appear to be a number of discrepancies between design <br />parameter values listed in Table 3.9-3 ditch designs, and channel gradients and <br />lengths depicted on the referenced map figures. For example, Channel "C" <br />elevation difference, channel length, and slope are listed as, respectively, 15 feet, <br />40 feet, and 38% in the Table, but based on measurements taken from Figure 3.1- <br />6, the respective values appear to be approximately 27 feet, 120 feet, and 22.5%. <br />Similar discrepancies are evident with respect to Channels "F", "G", and "H". <br />Also, there appear to be overlapping, extraneous contour lines along the toe of the <br />reclaimed road in the immediate vicinity of Channel "G", as depicted on Figure <br />3.1-7, and the channel bottom width for Channel "G" is listed as 2 feet on the <br />Figure but 3 feet on the Table. <br />Please review the topography depicted on the figures and the information <br />listed in Table 3.9-3, and include properly amended design information and <br />mapping in the technical revision application. <br />